Name: Todd Gloria

Age: 30

Occupation: District Director for Rep. Susan Davis

Notable: City Commissioner, the San Diego Housing Commission; resident panelist on the Mid-City Prostitution Impact Panel; member and former chair of the board of directors of The San Diego LGBT Community Center

Gay & Lesbian Times: You’ve run a campaign on a platform addressing issues in our neighborhoods – more specifically you’ve addressed affordable housing, development, infrastructure, transportation and public safety. Let’s discuss each of those issues. First, what will you do to create more affordable housing in District 3?

Todd Gloria: This is an issue I feel particularly capable of leading on. I’ve served the last three years on our Housing Commission where we’ve been able to make significant strides on affordable housing, but there’s still a lot of work to be done. I think if you look at Toni Atkins’ time on the City Council, she’s helped to actually put together new sources of revenue to create more housing, and it shows a councilmember can have a real impact here. Within the current economic climate it’s more important than ever we focus on this. Recently on the Housing Commission we’ve authorized a land bank to try and acquire some of these foreclosed properties and put them into our affordable housing inventory and then get folks into them. Additionally, we’ve taken some of our funds to try and rescue some of these failed developments that are half done, that people see in Downtown and Uptown to where it makes financial sense to acquire those properties and turn them into affordable housing as well. That’s a real win for the community because these are market-rate developments that will have subsidies that seniors, the disabled, working families can live in. So there’s a real opportunity right now. We also need leadership in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. We have Proposition 1C dollars from the voter-approved bonds from ’06 and other streams of revenue we have to be competitive for. All this comes together to suggest we need a councilmember who is familiar with affordable housing and can work progressively to put the programs in place to take advantage of the current unfortunate situation and turn it into a positive for the world of affordable housing.

GLT: You publicly opposed the initial proposal for development at 301 University Ave. What is your take on the new proposal? Also, list a few other development projects in District 3 you oppose, or support.

TG: I oppose the new iteration of 301 University. We have issued a press release and made a statement to that effect. It’s really a slap in the face to the community after we successfully fought to stop the 12-story development to have it come back in the form of two towers, one significantly taller, both taller than what was originally proposed. It’s not appropriate, it remains inappropriate for that section of Hillcrest; it sets a bad precedent and I will oppose it as a City Council member.

In terms of other development, I support the interim height ordinance for Uptown. It’s an appropriate and very, very moderate response to the need to update our community plan. The next councilmember has to make that a priority so that out-of-scale developments like 301 University will not be able to proceed. The problem with all of this is community activists have been forced into the position of fighting these developments on an ad hoc basis and that is a recipe for … well, it’s not the right way to fight these projects. The community should have a more comprehensive solution to these problems, and that is updating the community plan. The councilmember has to lead on that by appropriating the dollars necessary to get those particular documents updated.

You asked about other projects. You know, it never came forward but there was a proposal to build a significantly tall structure behind the Lafayette hotel; 17 stories. That also seemed out of scale for the community.

But, we have seen, I think, good examples of development. I think Kensington Terrace is a project that was worthy of support. I have said I supported it. It’s a very moderately-sized development in a community that is looking for more retail uses on an important avenue. So, I think that’s an example of something we can support. You look at some of the affordable housing projects that I’ve supported – whether City Heights Urban Village, Talmadge Senior Square – these are projects that have brought needed affordable housing to the community, and, additionally, new retail, good jobs, and other things that have brought some real value adds to our neighborhoods. Those are the kinds of projects I look forward to championing as a City Council member.

GLT: What will you do to fund improvements for aging infrastructure in District 3?

TG: My frustration all along has been that we have such an enormous backlog of deferred maintenance and no real plan to address it. And so, we have to start addressing that within the context of our annual budget, but probably looking outside that context too. The average homeowner has to plan for the replacement of the roof of their house, anyone who owns a car has to plan for maintenance of the car; it’s just what we have to do. The city has a similar obligation when it comes to infrastructure, but they’ve never set aside or planned for the replacement of the roof, the tune up of the car. We have to do that within the general fund budget. I think most people would be surprised to find out that the city doesn’t really have any dedicated funding for deferred maintenance within their budget. We’re going to have to lead on that. No one’s ever quantified the actual size of our deferred maintenance bill. We know it’s in the billions of dollars and when you understand that, you’ll know the general fund is actually not going to be sufficient to address all the needs that are there. I think that we have to look at an infrastructure bond. Many of us are looking at trying to push and work on that in the 2010 election. As the city re-enters the bond market, it seems appropriate that this be what we ask the voters for support for, before a Chargers stadium, before any developer giveaways, that our neighborhoods and our neighborhoods’ infrastructure is taken care of first. It’s about addressing it within the annual budget but also finding significant revenue outside of that to address the long-deferred maintenance that is in our neighborhoods.

The reason this is important for District 3 is that we have the oldest neighborhoods. Hillcrest is 101 years old, Normal Heights is 103. We have the oldest communities with infrastructure that looks to be exactly that old. So when the city doesn’t properly pay for its deferred maintenance, it is District 3 that tends to pay that price disproportionately. We need a councilmember with the knowledge and experience to champion this particular issue, and I feel I’m the one to do that.

GLT: What will you do to increase public safety patrols, and make residents in District 3 more safe?

TG: This is my immediate and first priority if elected. We have to ask the police chief to reassign our community relations officers back in our neighborhoods. There is not a cost associated with this. These are officers currently on patrol in various parts of the community that need to be relocated back into our neighborhoods. For example, in Hillcrest, Rick Edgel was our Hillcrest CRO for a lot of years. Rick had a valuable knowledge about the community. He knew all the issues, the bad actors, the problem properties and was able to address them day after day after day until they were resolved. When we got into the predicament of losing so many officers, the CRO program was scaled back to just two officers for the entire city. What I’m suggesting is there is such extreme value in having one officer responsible for one community so residents have can have direct interface with the police department to proactively address problems from becoming larger problems. So that’s day one, and I think that we’ll be able to get that done.

Going forward, I think it’s about reopening our police storefronts. When we have CROs, reopening storefronts becomes easier to do. Many of these are city-owned facilities. At the 39th street park in Normal Heights, the Adult Base Center in North Park, or the storefront in the Uptown Shopping Center - all of those are facilities that have no cost to the city because they’re already within the city’s portfolio. It’s a matter of opening them up and re-engaging the community to, again, start proactively addressing the problems in their neighborhoods. This is how we took care of the crime problem about 15 years ago. It’s how we’re going to address the crime problem in District 3 today.

Going forward, our long-term goal is to fill the 200 vacancies in our police department. These are positions that are there, but we’ve lost people to the Chula Vista Police Department, the Riverside Sheriff’s Department, simply because it’s not hard to make the judgment that if you can get better pay and work where you can afford to live, you go. And we’ve lost so many good officers to those jurisdictions. We’ve stemmed that tide by providing pay increases to our officers, but we have to start getting aggressive about filling those vacancies, because a woman in University Heights I was talking to on the doorstep the other day told me she waited 15 minutes on hold when she called 9-1-1 recently. Those are also among the 200 vacancies, and that is unacceptable. The first responsibility of municipal government is the safety of its citizens, and that’s why public safety and preventing crime is my top, No. 1 priority.

GLT: In terms of transportation, what are District 3’s unmet needs and what will you do to remedy those?

TG: The first and most serious unmet need is out in City Heights. When the I-15 was completed through City Heights back in 2000, we were promised we would have mass transit along the center median of that freeway. It was a promise made to the community. It is a promise that has not been kept. We have to push on CalTrans and MTS to actually complete that. It’s been eight years. This is a job strain for people from Mid-City to Golden Triangle to Downtown and that was, again, a promise that was made that has not been kept, and something that I vow to force our regional transportation folks to finally follow through on. The other unmet needs are really what we’re losing through a war of attrition when it comes to transit. Transit in this community is always about what we’re going to cut or eliminate – what bus routes we’re going to cut, what transfers we’re going to eliminate. We have to turn that paradigm around and make this not about what we’re going to eliminate but what we’re growing. You know, in the middle of the worst gas prices we’ve ever seen in this country, we were still cutting transit in this community. At the precise moment people economically could see themselves riding transit we were making it more difficult for people to choose transit.

So, how do we do some of this? Some of it is small. We can make transit easier to access. You know, only recently the transit folks make the transit schedules available on peoples’ cell phones, through your Blackberry or PDA. That’s incredible.

Going forward, we have a successful transit model in the UCSD shuttle that offers transportation from Hillcrest up to the campus. The thing has extremely high ridership and that’s because they make it easy to use. You can track online when the bus will arrive. There’s no guesswork involved, whether you just missed it or whether it will be there in 30 minutes. There’s a GPS system on every shuttle that allows people to know with great certainty when the bus will be there. It will also tell you how full the bus will be. That’s something you can get at Radio Shack for next to nothing, and something our transit folks should be doing now, again, to attract the choice riders, the people who can choose between their car and transit. That’s a small way we can make it more likely they’ll ride it. Going forward on a larger scale, we have to start prioritizing transit within our transportation dollars. Right now our region chooses to prioritize freeways and interstates over our transit system. Our future is more likely to be characterized by public transit because we simply can’t build enough roads to handle the demand. We have to start encouraging people to look at transit. The way we’re going to do that is by trying to shift this funding formula so that it doesn’t favor one form of transportation over all forms, but hopefully, gives people more of a variety to choose from, so that when we want to get from A to B you can look at walking, riding your bike, riding transit, or riding in your car. Right now, the current funding formula would tell you the only way to get there is in your car, and I’d like to try to switch that around.

GLT: Let’s discuss open government. Has the city, thus far, failed to operate in a transparent manner, and where has that led us? Also, is city government more transparent now with the new strong mayor form of government?

TG: The city certainly can do better when it comes to informing the citizens of what is currently going on in municipal government. We have seen certainly when it comes to development projects that there is not sufficient notice for everyone who is concerned about what may be happening in our community. Additionally when we have looked at the City Council, often their agendas aren’t as transparent as folks would like. There are issues of items being added to the agenda. I think it’s something you can always do better with.

The city must regain the trust of its citizens. Recent history has given San Diegans strong reasons to be mistrustful of their municipal government. Within this, we must do more because we have to regain the trust of the community before we can start talking about large investments in our infrastructure and other really important, pressing priorities. It’s certainly important to me that we operate in the most transparent, open way possible. With that said, we also have to start focusing on these urgent priorities, like our infrastructure and our public safety, so real results and progress can be seen for the citizens in this city.

I think they [City Council and mayor] are absolutely still adjusting to challenges [in the strong-mayor form of government]. I liken it to having your job changed in the middle … being hired for one job and getting a different one in the middle of that. I think the council has yet to really find its way within this new form of government. As a result, it’s likely transparency and open government could do better. I think that one of my value adds in this campaign is my experience working in a legislative branch, which is what the city council has now become under the strong-mayor form of government. What we need the council to do is provide the oversight of the executive branch – in this case the mayor – in order to ensure the citizens are given the best, most efficient, most transparent government possible. Again, I think the current council has been finding its voice when it comes to that and going forward, I think that’s something I can particularly help with.

GLT: Rate the mayor and the city council’s performance on a scale of one to 10 – one being a poor performance score, 10 being an outstanding performance score – under the strong mayor form of government? Where has the mayor and council succeeded and where have they failed?

TG: Let me take the City Council first. I would give them probably a five … four … five. Again, because I don’t think they’ve found their voice in this new form of government. When we transferred over to the strong-mayor form of government, what we were told is we were going to have a strong mayor, strong council. I think the council still has a lot of work to do in fulfilling that half of the equation of being a strong council. So, they probably deserve a five as a result.

The mayor I think has understood this newfound power that he has moreso and has consolidated that power very quickly. If you look at what he’s done in terms of making infrastructure more of a priority, or addressing some of the challenges we have in the city from a financial perspective, implementing the Kroll Report recommendations, getting us back in the bond market, I think he deserves credit for those particular advancements. But I think what we’ve all asked for is more vision from the mayor. He’s shown in his recent speech to the citizens I think a willingness to start looking in that direction when he addressed issues like water supply and the Chargers and other issues that he’s starting to exhibit more of that behavior. I think for that continued and sustained effort, I’d give him a seven.

GLT: Back to development for a moment: In light of economic and public safety concerns, what would you propose for the Navy Broadway Complex, and how will the future City Council work with the Centre City Development Corporation and the U.S. Navy to determine plans for the site?

TG: What I’d like to see is the 1992 development agreement renegotiated. That is the document that dictates what would be on that particular parcel and it’s very explicit in saying that we only have a very small park and otherwise it’s all commercial development. What I’d like to see is more open space, more open space and less development. I’d also like to see the Navy relocate off of that site and behind a fence line of a local military base where I think it’s more appropriate and certainly where it’s more secure. Going forward we will have a new council that may be more open to doing that. It begins with the development agreement and what was agreed to between the city, the Navy and CCDC and that’s where we have to start if we want to renegotiate this agreement and start looking at a development that would be more open with more access to the waterfront, and more open-space opportunities for all of us.

GLT: Your opponent has proposed dissolving CCDC and SEDC into the city’s larger redevelopment agency. Do you agree with his proposal?

TG: He’s proposed eliminating CCDC and SEDC, and I think that’s a knee-jerk reaction to very specific instances of wrongdoing on behalf of employees at both agencies, and we are currently in a process of reconsidering the agency he wants to fold them into. So, there is a broader conversation going on about redevelopment in this city. The Independent Budget Analyst and other agencies are working to make the judgment about what to do. I don’t believe it’s appropriate to take away these vital tools for the communities of Southeast San Diego and Downtown because of the wrongdoing of a very few people. The people who engaged in those activities should be punished and safeguards should be put in place so those things can’t happen again. Ultimately I don’t think we should be punishing the neighborhoods for the misdeeds of the presidents of those organizations.

GLT: City Attorney Michael Aguirre was praised in the Wall Street Journal for his work on an appeal that would roll back pension benefits illegally granted to city employees. Do you think Aguirre’s appeal is a good use of taxpayer dollars, and do you think he’ll succeed at overturning the pension benefits?

TG: I don’t think he’ll succeed. We’ve had two courtrooms now who have not ruled in the city attorney’s favor. I don’t have any reason to believe that will change going forward. Given the unlikelihood of its success, I’m not certain it’s the best place for us to invest our limited means.

GLT: Simple question: Will you vote for Aguirre or his opponent Jan Goldsmith in the city attorney’s race?

TG: I will not be voting for Mike Aguirre. My decision comes really after feedback from the people in council District 3 who I spoke with who said his office hasn’t been as responsive to their needs as they would like. We have organizations that have been unable to get contracts or agreements from the City Attorney’s office and as a result they have had difficulty operating – these are nonprofit groups that operate in our neighborhoods. My experience … that’s what informs my decision. I’m hopeful that may change with the change in the City Attorney’s office. If that’s not the case, as the councilmember, I’d hope to bridge the gap between those organizations that do not feel like the office has been as responsive as they need it to be, and to encourage the City Attorney’s office to provide the contracts, legal advice, counsel that are needed for critical programs in our neighborhood. Ultimately, people are electing me because they want to see change, results, they want to see progress in our city. We need to see that happen. I’m committed to seeing that happen, and I will work with either person, either candidate, whoever is elected.

GLT: You said “I will not be voting for Mike Aguirre.” Does that mean you will be voting for Jan Goldsmith, or will you not vote in the City Attorney’s race?

TG: Still deciding. I’m a Democrat, and it is a difficult choice to make. I’m still deciding.

GLT: In terms of campaign finance, you and your opponent have faced intense scrutiny. First, let’s discuss the critique on your opponent. He has faced scrutiny for loaning his campaign more than $200,000. Some have said it’s an attempt to buy the election. Others have questioned where the money has come from. Address those concerns for voters.

TG: I think when you see candidates self-funding their races it causes one to ask what support that candidate has in the community. I have been proud of the broad coalition I have been able to build to support my candidacy. I think in this particular race as well, in District 3, we are a working-class district and the median income is rather low. Ultimately, we’re electing a representative, someone from this community to represent all of us down at City Hall. The personal resources that have been expended by my opponent lends many people in this district to wonder if he is able to represent their voice, their background, their experience down at City Hall. The other thing about self-funding is there is the opportunity to pay yourself back, and I think folks have raised questions about, not only where the money comes from, but also how will the money be repaid. And, is it appropriate to be a newly-elected councilmember accepting contributions that go directly back into the councilmember’s pocket? I think those are valid concerns, and ones the voters will have to decide how worthy they are.

GLT: You have been slammed for taking, roughly, tens of thousands of dollars from developers, and has been criticized for accepting a $100 donation from Perry Dealy, president of the Manchester Financial Group. Are concerns regarding development dollars in your campaign warranted? And, why didn’t you reject the $100 donation from Perry Dealy?

TG: Well to start, Perry no longer works for Manchester Financial and … I don’t have … that’s the … Perry no longer works for Manchester Financial. He is self-employed. I don’t know what else to say about that. The desire on behalf of some to want to challenge every donor I have, you know, I have over 1,200. To engage in that level to its logical conclusion would mean that you could probably find exceptions with almost anybody who contributed to my campaign. But you know the objection with Perry is with who he used to work for. Used to work for. Not where he currently is working.

[Concerns about developer dollars in my campaign] would be legitimate if my opponent hadn’t taken developer money as well. Often in that conversation, it is said that I have these contributions. It is never followed up with, well, so does my opponent. So if I’m going to be held to a different standard than my opponent, I think that’s unfair. What I’ve done is I’ve accepted contributions from all parts of the community. To have focused on a small part of my contributions and ignore the fact that I also have more contributions from doctors and nurses, teachers, organized labor, nonprofit executives, is I think cherry-picking facts that really excludes the full truth, which is, my opponent has accepted developer dollars as well. I think that the citizens of San Diego are tired of only being told half truths and having facts twisted to suit the political expediencies of politicians who are running for office. I’ve been direct. I’ve been clear. I’ve been transparent. My opponent’s decision to self-fund his campaign does not lend to the same level or transparency I’m providing voters, mostly because the lion’s share of his contributions will come after the election, if he is elected.

GLT: In the days leading up to the election, undecided voters will be tasked with choosing a qualified candidate to represent District 3. They will have two names on the ballot. Why are you more qualified than your opponent, Stephen Whitburn, to represent District 3 on the San Diego City Council?

TG: District 3 has real and serious problems that are facing it and it needs someone with knowledge and experience to solve them. I’ve grown up in this community. I’m a third generation resident of District 3. I have spent my career in public service working in every neighborhood of District 3. I know this community like the back of my hand and the experience I’ve had working for Congresswoman Davis, serving on the Mid-City Prostitution Impact Panel, serving as the past chairman of our Center, and serving on the Housing Commission are all experiences I’m going to take with me down to City Hall to address our public safety problem, our infrastructure problem and our transit needs. When others have looked at this race everyone has come to the conclusion I am the better qualified candidate. I’ll give you an example. The Union-Tribune and CityBeat are two editorial pages that rarely agree on anything. Philosophically they come from different ends of the spectrum. They both interviewed myself and my opponent and they both came to the conclusion that I was the best qualified candidate. They took the partisanship out of the equation and simply judged us on our merit. Both newspapers noted I have a better command of the issues and I am ready to serve the communities right away. I hope that the people of District 3, as they make their decision, look at those decisions and hopefully come to the same conclusion: that the needs are serious, the problems are growing, and we need a professional, someone who knows this neighborhood, and who has experience to address these problems. If they make that conclusion, I think they will certainly vote for me.